pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty profits decline on poor istock performance  (Read 24309 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2015, 19:40 »
+7


In 2007 the full year revenue was $860m   for 2011  $945 million  $879 million for the 12 months that ended Sept. 30  for 2014.




Sorry, but these numbers miss the point.  It's what has happened AFTER Sept 30 2014 that is important.  Getty has just announced a drop in iStock revenue for the 4th quarter of 17% (ie after your numbers quoted above).  That represents a potential annualised drop of circa $50 million in a full year.  In other words the EXPECTED revenue for the year ending Sept 2015 is now $50 million less than before ie less than in 2007.  That's why the bond market plunged - fear of next year and beyond.

The problem is that the drop isn't a 'one off'; it's not something due to special expenses or extra investment - it's a drop in recurring revenue.

And this is on top of the 7% drop in iStock revenue the previous twelve months (as reported by Moodys).


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2015, 19:44 »
+3

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.

« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2015, 19:48 »
+2

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.

I was just kidding.

But the real problem is that it's not just a business that's being bought, sold, traded, and reported on. It's not anyone's passion, which has resulted in buyers and contributors losing their passion. It really is too bad.

H2O

    This user is banned.
« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2015, 19:52 »
+2
Getty are a zombie company with the level of debt they have, unable to invest or innovate, this leads me to think that they will go bankrupt, then they will be out of the game, istock will be finished as all there customers will walk, the content can be bought else where.

Parts of Getty will survive, not sure which bits though.

The question is, which of the smaller stock companies are going to break through to the top level by capitalizing on Getty's misfortune.

« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2015, 20:37 »
+3
Bill Gates's - Corbis could buy them up Reduce redundancy and just become stronger in the process. Since they are unprofitable as far as I know it could mean a way for them to be so. 

If I had the cash I would buy Getty but I would turn it into a fair commission and fair for clients price place. Which in turn would probably run me to the ground as the debt is so high, it would take years for it to change enough with clients to turn the necessary profit to dig out.

Whomever buys it has to have a way to pay the debt outside of the ability of the company itself to do so.  Pay the debt with outside cash or an IPO and then restructure and fix it from within. Then it can fundamentaly change for the better and turn a profit.   

« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2015, 21:14 »
+1
It's quite amusing to go back less than 18 months and see Bunhill and Tickstock telling me that the evidence I cited of falling iStock sales was completely meaningless and I was reaching absurd conclusions:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483

Sorry where did I say that?  From the link you are apparently referring to it looks like I said everyone isn't down 40% (I don't think I called your conclusions absurd, I still think they were wrong though).  If the article about Getty is correct they were down 17% (after a lot more changes right?) so the 30-40% number still looks high.  I would expect since they introduced subs that earnings are down, subs are bad and they hurt contributors earnings.  You won't get any disagreement from me that subs are not good for us. 

« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2015, 21:23 »
+2

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.

« Reply #82 on: February 27, 2015, 21:25 »
0

Whomever buys it has to have a way to pay the debt outside of the ability of the company itself to do so.  Pay the debt with outside cash or an IPO and then restructure and fix it from within. Then it can fundamentaly change for the better and turn a profit.

It would take that AND a new management with real business vision. Because there are two competing companies who are growing and making profits. They are not being run as a hobby by a billionaire.

Yes Bill Gates or someone similar who  is simply passionate about saving art. Bill Gates could probably absorb Getty into Corbis.

So lets hope for a kind millionaire investor.

But the growth story will probably be with adobe and shutterstock, because while getty is slowly restructured over several years or absorbed into something else, they will continue to aggressively grow their business and hunt after the getty customers.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 21:27 by cobalt »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #83 on: February 27, 2015, 21:50 »
+1

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.

'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2015, 02:41 »
+2
Adobe could buy Getty whenever they want, no questions about it, but then why they grabbed Fotolia instead ?

same for Microsoft, what would be the point ? they never managed to seriously integrate Corbis content into their products so far, for instance i can't remember any integration with MS Office where tons of users would be more than happy to have access to such a big archive of images.

« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2015, 04:42 »
+3
Will the fact that it looks like they could go bankrupt at some point make buyers look elsewhere now?  Will they feel comfortable paying subscription fees upfront or will they go back to paying for individual images?

Are the Carlyle Group just going to write off Getty?  Looks like some of their previous acquisitions have ended up filing for bankruptcy, is Getty too big to fail or just a small part of their portfolio that can be written off?  I'm guessing the latter.

This one is interesting, Oriental Trading Company was owned by the Carlyle Group and filed for bankruptcy and was then purchased by Berkshire Hathaway.  Time for some wild speculation, would be interesting if Warren Buffett got Getty, he is friends with Bill Gates who owns Corbis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Trading_Company

« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2015, 05:18 »
+7
Debt. It's a sure path to slavery. Surely that debt placed on Getty was a set up. Even back in 2012 we contributors knew the trajectory was downwards. Carlyle Getty crapola funny business screwing up real people's lives.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 05:21 by goober »

« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2015, 07:43 »
+1
So far some of the list of possible Getty buyers from this thread include:

Bruce Livingstone
Microsoft
Shutterstock
Adobe
Warren Buffet

I say lets add:

Tedd Turner
Rupert Murdoch
Apple
Google
Viacom
Time Warner
Disney
Facebook
Bloomberg

Outliers:

Richard Branson
Donald Trump
Larry Ellison
Oprah Winfrey
George Soros
Carl Icahn
Steve Forbes

Did I miss anyone?

« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2015, 07:57 »
+1
Did I miss anyone?

Yes: the stock (financials) buying public. Still a possible eventual owner IMO.

« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2015, 09:14 »
0
they might indeed still offer for an IPO.
 i have no idea how they would spin it into a success Story, but they could try.

so I would add IPO to the list.

and I would also add  "Hedgefonds " or maybe some people here know the investor Scene and can add a few groups.

finally: what about the Gettyfamily? could they bring in a few Billion Dollars or take over the debt to save their prestige toy?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 09:17 by cobalt »

« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2015, 09:17 »
+5

Batman

« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2015, 10:08 »
+4
Debt. It's a sure path to slavery. Surely that debt placed on Getty was a set up. Even back in 2012 we contributors knew the trajectory was downwards. Carlyle Getty crapola funny business screwing up real people's lives.

H&F raped the company and us and sold it to Carlyle. Getty has a big part of the whole Getty all the time. Soon IS will merge into Getty in the US and Canada Ops. will be gone. Consoligation.

B8

« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2015, 11:34 »
+5
I don't quite see how it will really be possible to spin off any of the Getty "assets" to try and save Getty, which I just consider links now to the main Getty site anyway. With all this pulling in of other sites under the Getty umbrella that has been going on, and trying to in essence remove the iStock brand in a way and convert it to a Getty brand, what would a buyer really be buying? Maybe just a decent domain name at this point? I may be exaggerating a bit on the weak value of iStock as an asset, but all the Getty collections are incestuous now. iStock content is all over the Getty site and even more Getty content is on the iStock site. So perhaps a part of what keeps iStock buyers there for all we know is the access to the Getty site content at lower iStock prices and vice versa. If you unhook the sites then you stand to lose buyers at both sites because you no longer can offer the buyers in each of the stores the same access to all the same collective content. So from an investor standpoint why would you want to buy iStock knowing you will lose a lot of the content available through iStock as soon as it is decoupled from Getty? Had they not married the sites together then an investor could more easily asses the future potential of the site. Now, who knows if iStock is simply a link to funnel traffic into the Getty site or if the Getty site is a way to sell their buyers cheaper iStock content from an investors standpoint and maybe investors don't want to take the risk of buying into that unknown. Either way, even if revenue for contributors doesn't drop if they decouple the sites I can see it not looking attractive to an investor for the reasons I just mentioned. But the truth is iStock contributors would lose any sales they are making from Getty if the two site are decoupled which could be another considerable hit to contributor revenue for some iStock contributors who get a decent Getty bump every month.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:38 by B8 »

« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2015, 13:33 »
+2
I don't quite see how it will really be possible to spin off any of the Getty "assets" to try and save Getty ...  the truth is iStock contributors would lose any sales they are making from Getty if the two site are decoupled ... etc

Nobody serious is suggesting that iStock could or would be "de - coupled" from Getty or sold off on its own. iStock and Getty images compliment each other - it's like running two different shops.

However Jim Pickerell (quoted as a source in the Bloomberg article) has elsewhere suggested that Getty's prestigious editorial "asset" could be sold off.

« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2015, 13:59 »
+8
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591

« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2015, 15:35 »
+2

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.

'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
I guess my point is that whoever took over Getty at some point, back when, lacked the Midas touch. iStock too was much loved and respected by their photographers. I had a look at their forum last week and it's anything but this now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2015, 16:02 »
+2

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.

'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
I guess my point is that whoever took over Getty at some point, back when, lacked the Midas touch. iStock too was much loved and respected by their photographers. I had a look at their forum last week and it's anything but this now.
Indeed, and that's without those of us who are banned sine die.

KB

« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2015, 16:59 »
+7
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591

I hope someone pointed out at that time that there were some of us who think they are lazy,  incompetent, greedy, and uncaring. And probably more who feel that way by now.

« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2015, 17:35 »
+1

I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591


Great flashback. Perhaps we need some stronger adjectives now to describe the state of our current feelings. How about: Inept, Inadequate, Foolish, And Pathetic? I say we keep "Greedy" though. I think that one still suits well and will remain appropriate indefinitely.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2015, 17:42 »
0


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3385 Views
Last post July 01, 2006, 11:14
by Quevaal
19 Replies
13352 Views
Last post October 17, 2009, 02:18
by RacePhoto
22 Replies
12689 Views
Last post November 17, 2011, 17:59
by rubyroo
3 Replies
4617 Views
Last post January 07, 2016, 11:12
by Zero Talent
1 Replies
3202 Views
Last post August 23, 2018, 13:22
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors